slam dunk corruption

July 26, 2016 2:11 PM

What US campaign finance reform proposals are out there being discussed besides "Repeal Citizens United"? Specifically are there any that try to account for parity among multiple candidates rather than merely capping their resources?

I've been thinking about campaign finance reform and how the whole idea is to limit the amount of money that goes into politics. I just wonder if there's a way to create strong election laws that don't just rely on returning to hard small dollar limits and involve the crazy difficulty of passing an amendment limiting donors. The fact is, before SuperPACs there was still often major fundraising disparities between candidates that were both unfair and corrupting anyway, so it's not like the current raging inflation created campaign finance problems.

What if what we were after was actually parity the way sports like Basketball or Baseball think about it. Have there been any proposals, either by policy or (NBA Salary Cap) wonks, to create parity rather than limiting donations? For instance, a luxury tax where you can raise more than X times the amount that your opponent has but then your campaign has to pay a fine (which could either go to the government or into some shared resource like a pool of TV ad money both candidates could draw from). Or just a pure cap based on # of voters (your whole campaign can't spend more than X$ per voter no matter how much money you raise).

Any type of proposal would be interesting to read outside of just Repeal Citizens United (and/or limit donations) in any form: tweet, scholarly paper, blog post, article, comic book, whatever. God bless America.

posted by Potomac Avenue to Law & Government (6 answers total)

You're asking if stuff like this exists? Yes. Probably not in the U.S.

In Canada, in addition to whatever rules there are on donations, there are also spending limits for candidates campaigning for office and for "third parties" which in the Canadian context means people who are not candidates/political parties (i.e. third parties trying to influence voters, so they're acting as neither voter nor candidate, they are third parties). So if a union or an advocacy group or whomever wants to campaign on behalf of a candidate, there are limits on how much they can spend.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 2:27 PM on July 26, 2016

Best answer: Here are two actually-enacted campaign finance laws that might be examples of what you're asking for, but they were both recently held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

One, the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, gave more lenient contribution caps to a candidate whose opponent was spending large amounts of personal funds. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-320.ZO.html

Another, the Arizona Clean Elections Act, gave increased matching funds to candidates whose opponents spent a lot of money, with the goal of equalizing funding. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-238.ZO.html

On the general point of creating parity in campaign finance law, the Court said:

We have repeatedly rejected the argument that the government has a compelling state interest in “leveling the playing field” that can justify undue burdens on political speech. . . . After all, equalizing campaign resources might serve not to equalize the opportunities of all candidates, but to handicap a candidate who lacked substantial name recognition or exposure of his views before the start of the campaign.

Leveling electoral opportunities means making and implementing judgments about which strengths should be permitted to contribute to the outcome of an election—a dangerous enterprise and one that cannot justify burdening protected speech. . . . And such basic intrusion by the government into the debate over who should govern goes to the heart of First Amendment values.

“Leveling the playing field” can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game. It is a critically important form of speech. The First Amendment embodies our choice as a Nation that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom—the unfettered interchange of ideas—not whatever the State may view as fair.

(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

FWIW.
posted by willbaude at 2:39 PM on July 26, 2016

Wikipedia has some discussion of efforts to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters present differing views.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 3:08 PM on July 26, 2016

Best answer: Seattle passed a campaign finance initiative that gives voters "democracy vouchers" to allocate small amounts to local candidates of their choice. (CNN, Atlantic)
posted by matildaben at 3:38 PM on July 26, 2016

Best answer: Well you'd have to get around Buckley vs. Valeo, which said that limiting donations is not a violation of the First Amendment, but that limiting expenditures is.

I think bringing complete transparency to all political donations and expenditures would be one way to help. No longer allowing corporations and individuals to donate in secret to political non-profits that then spend that money on independent expenditures for campaigns and issues.
posted by brookeb at 3:40 PM on July 26, 2016

Best answer: I think the assumption is that nullifying Citizens United is the first, necessary step.

Contrary to Willbaude and the opinion he quotes, the purpose of any meaningful reform is to allow access to the political process by people who lack wealth and the means to generate it. Citizens United does allow those with wealth to buy air time and thereby speak freely, but it has also effectively allowed that wealth to crowd out everyone else's ability to be heard.
posted by justcorbly at 6:23 PM on July 26, 2016 [1 favorite]